Disposed

Rakesh Kumar Jakhar S/O Man Singh v. the State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC7 Oct 2025CW/702/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bench allowed batch of writ petitions only to issue directions. Court held petitions premature for substantive review as no recovery order issued. Directed administration to decide refund/refortification claims within 30 days of representation with interest penalty for delay.

What did the court decide?

Direct authority to decide refund/refund claims within 30 days of representation, failing which amount is deemed valid, with 12% interest on delay.

Rakesh Kumar Jakhar S/O Man Singh Vs the State of… — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:39010]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11294/2025

¶4

Atar Singh S/o. Har Kishan, Aged About 43 Years, R/o. Kherla Bujurg, Dausa, Rajasthan.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶8

Joint Secretary, Department Of Finance (Excise) Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶9

The Excise Commissioner, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur.

¶10

District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Jaipur City.

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

Connected With

¶13

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1980/2025

¶14

Sanjya Devi W/o Hardev Meena, Aged About 78 Years, R/o Village Kampura Bas, Baneti, Jaipur, Rajasthan.303105

¶15

----Petitioner

¶16

Versus

¶17

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶18

Joint Secretary, Department Of Finance (Excise) Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶19

The Excise Commissioner, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur.

¶20

District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Alwar

¶21

----Respondents

¶22

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11155/2025

¶23

Ram Narain Sharma S/o Ganga Ram Sharma, Aged About 71 Years, R/o 63, Bagra Sadan, Govindpura, Kalwar Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302012.

¶24

----Petitioner

¶25

Versus

¶26

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶27

Joint Secretary, Department Of Finance, (Excise) Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

(2 of 24)

[2025:RJ-JP:39010]

[CW-11294/2025]

The Excise Commissioner, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur.

¶32

District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Jaipur City.

¶33

----Respondents

¶34

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11215/2025

¶35

Babu Khan S/o. Bhure Khan, Aged About 67 Years, R/o.35, 36, Khaati Pura Road, Mehnat Nagar, Hatwara, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶36

----Petitioner

¶37

Versus

¶38

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶39

Joint Secretary, Department Of Finance (Excise) Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶40

The Excise Commissioner, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur.

¶41

District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Jaipur City.

¶42

----Respondents

¶43

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11236/2025

¶44

Munshi Khan S/o Bhure Khan, Aged About 62 Years, R/o 39, Mehanat Nagar, Hatwara, 60 Ft. Road, Khatipura Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶45

----Petitioner

¶46

Versus

¶47

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶48

Joint Secretary, Department Of Finance (Excise) Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶49

The Excise Commissioner, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur.

¶50

District Excise Officer, Excise Department Jaipur City.

¶51

----Respondents

¶52

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11323/2025

¶53

Munshi Khan S/o Bhure Khan, Aged About 62 Years, R/o 39, Mahanat Nagar, Hatwara, 60Ft Road, Khatipura Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶54

----Petitioner

¶55

Versus

¶56

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Finance

(3 of 24)

[2025:RJ-JP:39010]

[CW-11294/2025]

Department Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶61

Joint Secretary, Department Of Finance (Excise) Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶62

The Excise Commissioner, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur.

¶63

District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Jaipur City.

¶64

----Respondents

¶65

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 701/2025

¶66

Santosh Devi W/o Satyapal Singh, Aged About 58 Years, R/o Vill Kolinda Ka Bas Nourth, Kolinda, Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan-333001

¶67

----Petitioner

¶68

Versus

¶69

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶70

Joint Secretary, Department Of Finance, (Excise) Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶71

The Excise Commissioner, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur.

¶72

District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Jhunjhunu.

¶73

----Respondents

¶74

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 702/2025

¶75

Rakesh Kumar Jakhar S/o Man Singh, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Malsisar, Paharsar, Bissau, Rajasthan-331027

¶76

----Petitioner

¶77

Versus

¶78

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶79

Joint Secretary, Department Of Finance, (Excise) Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶80

The Excise Commissioner, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur.

¶81

District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Jhunjhunu.

¶82

----Respondents

¶83

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1649/2025

¶84

Raju Bhai Singhania S/o Munshi Singhania, Aged About 45 Years, R/o B1-436, Niti Khand-1, Indirapura, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh201014

----Petitioner

Versus

(4 of 24)

[2025:RJ-JP:39010]

[CW-11294/2025]

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶91

Joint Secretary, Department Of Finance, (Excise) Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶92

The Excise Commissioner, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur.

¶93

District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Alwar.

¶94

----Respondents

¶95

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1869/2025

¶96

Dhuni Lal S/o. Shimbhu Dayal, Aged About 46 Years, R/o. 102, Dhani Kumharan, Mankot, Saleta, Alwar, Rajasthan 301022

¶97

----Petitioner

¶98

Versus

¶99

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur

¶100

Joint Secretary, Department Of Finance, (Excise)Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur

¶101

The Excise Commissioner, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur

¶102

District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Alwar

¶103

----Respondents

¶104

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2359/2025

¶105

Vivek Kumar S/o Indra Lal, Aged About 31 Years, R/o C/104, 105, Ward No. 07, Indra Nagar, Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan-333001

¶106

----Petitioner

¶107

Versus

¶108

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur

¶109

Joint Secretary, Department Of Finance (Excise), Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur

¶110

The Excise Commissioner, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur

¶111

District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Jhunjhunu. ----Respondents

¶112

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2895/2025

¶113

Arvind Kumar S/o Kurada Ram, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Nangali, Sikar, Rajasthan- 332307

----Petitioner

Versus

[2025:RJ-JP:39010]

[CW-11294/2025]

(5 of 24)

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶120

Joint Secretary, Department Of Finance (Excise), Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶121

The Excise Commissioner, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur.

¶122

District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Jhunjhunu.

¶123

----Respondents

¶124

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2896/2025

¶125

Reshma W/o Vidhyadhar, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Sehi Kalan, Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan-333026.

¶126

----Petitioner

¶127

Versus

¶128

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶129

Joint Secretary, Department Of Finance (Excise), Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶130

The Excise Commissioner, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur.

¶131

District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Jhunjhunu.

¶132

----Respondents

¶133

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4036/2025

¶134

Umesh Dudi S/o Jai Singh Dudi, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Dudiyon Ki Dhani, Bhukana, Jhunjhunu, Rajastha 333026

¶135

----Petitioner

¶136

Versus

¶137

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶138

Joint Secretary, Department Of Finance (Excise), Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶139

The Excise Commissioner, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur.

¶140

District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Jhunjhunu. ----Respondents

¶141

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11097/2025

¶142

Gulab Singh Naruka S/o Shree Goverdhan Singh, Aged About 49 Years, R/o 252, Shiv Nagar-Ii, Murlipura, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner

Versus

(6 of 24)

[2025:RJ-JP:39010]

[CW-11294/2025]

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶149

Joint Secretary, Department Of Finance (Excise), Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶150

The Excise Commissioner, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur.

¶151

District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Jaipur City.

¶152

----Respondents

¶153

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11102/2025

¶154

Rahul Sharma S/o Shanker Lal Sharma, Aged About 35 Years, R/o 63, Bagra Sadan, Govindpura, Kalwar Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 302012

¶155

----Petitioner

¶156

Versus

¶157

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶158

Joint Secretary, Department Of Finance (Excise) Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶159

The Excise Commissioner, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur.

¶160

District Excise Officer, Excise Department Jaipur City.

¶161

----Respondents

¶162

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11149/2025

¶163

Omprakash Jat S/o Shrawan Lal Jat, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Ward No.-2, Dhani Devanda Ke Aspura, Sikar, Rajasthan-332701.

¶164

----Petitioner

¶165

Versus

¶166

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶167

Joint Secretary, Department Of Finance (Excise) Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶168

The Excise Commissioner, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur.

¶169

District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Jaipur City.

¶170

----Respondents

¶171

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11186/2025

¶172

Sikander Ali S/o Hakam Ali, Aged About 37 Years, R/o 261 Shiv Nagar-2, Murlipura Scheme, Jaipur, Rajasthan, 302039

[2025:RJ-JP:39010]

[CW-11294/2025]

----Petitioner

(7 of 24)

Versus

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶179

Joint Secretary, Department Of Finance, (Excise) Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶180

The Excise Commissioner, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur

¶181

District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Jaipur City.

¶182

----Respondents

¶183

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11205/2025

¶184

Najma Bano W/o. Mohmmad Skil, Aged About 40 Years, R/o. Kayam Nagar, Gali No. 3, Didwana, Nagaur, Rajasthan.

¶185

----Petitioner

¶186

Versus

¶187

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶188

Joint Secretary, Department Of Finance (Excise) Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶189

The Excise Commissioner, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur.

¶190

District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Jaipur City.

¶191

----Respondents

¶192

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11208/2025

¶193

Ayub Khan S/o. Bhoore Khan, Aged About 56 Years, R/o. 37 Gali No 3 Mehnat Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶194

----Petitioner

¶195

Versus

¶196

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶197

Joint Secretary, Department Of Finance (Excise) Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶198

The Excise Commissioner, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur.

¶199

District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Jaipur City.

¶200

----Respondents

¶201

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11218/2025

¶202

Rubi Pandey W/o. Om Pandey, Aged About 37 Years, R/o. 2A, Bhim Nagarn, Niwaru Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

[2025:RJ-JP:39010]

[CW-11294/2025]

(8 of 24)

----Petitioner

Versus

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur

¶209

Joint Secretary, Department Of Finance (Excise), Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur

¶210

The Excise Commissioner, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur

¶211

District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Jaipur City

¶212

----Respondents

¶213

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11293/2025

¶214

Ramkishan Meena S/o Nathu Lal Meena, Aged About 51 Years, R/o Sangawala Achrol, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶215

----Petitioner

¶216

Versus

¶217

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶218

Joint Secretary, Department Of Finance (Excise), Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶219

The Excise Commissioner, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur.

¶220

District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Jaipur City.

¶221

----Respondents

¶222

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11305/2025

¶223

Yasmin Bano W/o Shokin, Aged About 41 Years, R/o 39, Hatawada Road, Mehanat Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶224

----Petitioner

¶225

Versus

¶226

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶227

Joint Secretary, Department Of Finance (Excise), Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶228

The Excise Commissioner, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur.

¶229

District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Jaipur City.

¶230

----Respondents

¶231

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11371/2025

¶232

Najma Bano W/o Mohmmad Skil, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Kayam Nagar, Gali No. 3, Didwana, Nagaur, Rajasthan And

(9 of 24)

[2025:RJ-JP:39010]

[CW-11294/2025]

Composite Liquor Shop Situated At Shop No. 3, Ward No. 36(H), Cercle-Jhotwara, Jaipur City.

¶237

Versus

¶238

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶239

Joint Secretary, Department Of Finance (Excise), Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶240

The Excise Commissioner, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur.

¶241

District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Jaipur City.

¶242

----Respondents

¶243

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11372/2025

¶244

Farha Khan S/o Aziz Khan, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Aziz Khan, F-191, Chetanya Marg, C Scheme, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶245

----Petitioner

¶246

Versus

¶247

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶248

Joint Secretary, Department Of Finance (Excise) Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶249

The Excise Commissioner, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur.

¶250

District Excise Officer, Excise Department Jaipur City.

¶251

----Respondents

¶252

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11456/2025

¶253

Naresh Kumar Sayawani S/o Nathumal, Aged About 42 Years, R/o 31, Fatehram Ka Tiba Narsingh Dev Ki Bagichi Tripolia Bazaar, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶254

----Petitioner

¶255

Versus

¶256

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶257

Joint Secretary, Department Of Finance (Excise) Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur

¶258

The Excise Commissioner, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur.

¶259

District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Jaipur City.

[2025:RJ-JP:39010]

[CW-11294/2025]

(10 of 24)

----Respondents

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14093/2025

¶265

Rohitash Kumar S/o Indraj Singh, Aged About 34 Years, R/o. Khatepura, Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan-333001

¶266

----Petitioner

¶267

Versus

¶268

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶269

Joint Secretary, Department Of Finance (Excise) Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶270

The Excise Commissioner, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur.

¶271

District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Jhunjhunu ----Respondents

¶272

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11304/2025

¶273

Satyaveer Singh S/o Jai Bhagwan Singh, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Plot No. 12, Ghanshyam Vihar Vistar, Panchyawala, Sirsi Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶274

----Petitioner

¶275

Versus

¶276

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶277

Joint Secretary, Department Of Finance (Excise), Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶278

The Excise Commissioner, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur.

¶279

District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Jaipur City. ----Respondents

¶280

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11365/2025

¶281

Ramjanki W/o Bhavani Singh, Aged About 33 Years, R/o F1-7, Lok Nayak Vyas Colony, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

[2025:RJ-JP:39010]

[CW-11294/2025]

(11 of 24)

----Petitioner

Versus

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶288

Joint Secretary, Department Of Finance (Excise), Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶289

The Excise Commissioner, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur.

¶290

District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Jaipur City. ----Respondents

¶291

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.B. Mathur, Sr. Advocate assisted by Ms. Falak Mathur Mr. Manish Bhodiwal Mr. Utsav Mr. Aditya Sharma Mr. Amit Malani

¶292

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Bharat Vyas, AAG with Mr. Harshvardhan Katara

¶293

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Judgment

¶294

Reserved on :: 16/09/2025 Pronounced on :: 07/10/2025

¶295

In the present batch of writ petitions, the scope of the controversy involved, albeit not limited to but is broadly and predominantly defined by the threefold challenge raised regarding the extension of license period of the petitioner(s) for three months i.e. from 01.04.2024 to 30.06.2024, in pursuance of order no. 4(1)/REV/EXC/2024 dated 13.03.2024 issued by Government of Rajasthan, Finance (Excise) Department; the order/guidelines dated 28.08.2024 issued by the Excise Commissioner vide serial number F.32(B)(1) (After Policy) EX/L/2024/2024-25-03000/149 to all the District Excise Officers

(12 of 24)

[2025:RJ-JP:39010]

[CW-11294/2025]

for calculation of shortfall for the extended period as arbitrary and beyond the enabling order no. 4 (1)/REV/EXC/2024 dated 13.03.2024; and the illegal and arbitrary actions of the respondents in not refunding the security deposit alongwith the Advanced Annual Guarantee (hereinafter referred as ‘AAG’) in light of the successful completion of the extended license period (01.04.2024 to 30.06.2024) of the petitioner in light of the order dated 13.03.2024. Consequently, considering the fact that the writ petitions warrant adjudication on common questions of law and fact; with the consent of learned counsel appearing on behalf of all the parties, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11294/2025 titled as Atar Singh vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors. , is being taken up as the lead case. It is cautiously clarified that any discrepancies in the present batch of writ petitions, pertain purely to the factual narratives contained therein and not vis-à-vis the questions of law to be determined by this Court; the instant judgment shall be applicable on all the petitions connected herein/henceforth on mutatis mutandis basis.

¶300

The lead petition is filed with the following prayers:

¶301

"a) Quash and set aside the impugned guidelines dated 28.08.2024 issued by the Excise Commissioner; b) Direct the respondent authorities to refund to the petitioner the security deposit and advanced annual guarantee amount along with interest @ 18% in light of the successful completion of the extended license period by the petitioner;

¶302

c) Quash and set aside any order passed by the respondent authorities against the petitioners during the pendency of this writ petitions;

(13 of 24)

[2025:RJ-JP:39010]

[CW-11294/2025]

d) Such further relief for which the petitioner is entitled may also be awarded including exemplary cost of the writ petition."

¶307

SUBMISSIONS BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL REPRESENTING THE PETITIONERS:

¶308

At the outset, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners have unanimously contended that the petitioner herein was the highest bidder (H1) for the composite liquor shop and he was issued a license by the respondent no. 4 to operate the license for the year 2023-24 and the petitioner operated for the license for the said period. The petitioner deposited all the advance payment towards the license and stared operating the shop from April 2022 and the petitioner, in accordance with the policy started lifting the liquor from RSGSM and RSBCL. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner operated the license till 31.03.2023 and did not opt for renewal of the said shop for the year 2024-25.

¶309

In this backdrop, learned senior counsel Mr. R.B. Mathur along with other counsel have contended that the petitioners duly operated their licenses up to 31.03.2024 and had specifically expressed their unwillingness to seek renewal thereof owing to substantial financial losses incurred during the operative period. However, due to the imposition of the Model Code of Conduct during the period of general elections and the resultant nonconduct of fresh auctions, the petitioners were compelled to continue operations under an extended licence period till 30.06.2024, in terms of the directions issued by the State

(14 of 24)

[2025:RJ-JP:39010]

[CW-11294/2025]

Government and the Excise Department, subject to certain terms and conditions imposed therein.

¶314

It was further contended that the refund and adjustment mechanism of AAG and allied components was duly determined by the competent authority vide notification dated 13.03.2024, which was subsequently clarified by communication dated 19.03.2024. In terms of the said notification, monthly adjustment in the quantum of minimum guaranteed quantity and its reconciliation on a quarterly basis was expressly permitted. The said notification also provided that renewal or extension of license beyond 01.07.2024 would be subject to separate consideration and in accordance with due procedure.

¶315

However, the Excise Commissioner, without having any statutory authority or competence, issued a clarificatory circular dated 28.08.2024, whereby the settled position and the intent of the notification dated 13.03.2024 were misinterpreted, resulting in arbitrary and unjustified calculations of shortfall and non-refund of security and advance amounts payable to the petitioners. It was apprised to the Court that despite submission of detailed representations by the petitioners, no effective adjudication is undertaken by the respondents. Nevertheless, a communication dated 13.01.2025 issued by one of the officers of the Excise Department reflects an erroneous and unilateral interpretation that the view of the Excise Commissioner shall prevail over the statutory notification dated 13.03.2024, which is impermissible in law.

(15 of 24)

[2025:RJ-JP:39010]

[CW-11294/2025]

Learned Senior Counsel further placed reliance upon the ratio encapsulated in (2017) 16 SCC 757 titled as Suresh Kumar Wadhwa vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. , as well as the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court rendered in S.B.

¶320

Civil Writ Petition No. 4606/2024 , titled as Krishna Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. , decided on 10.05.2024, to fortify the submission that the terms and conditions embodied in the license agreement did not empower the State or its authorities to unilaterally extend the tenure of license beyond its original period, nor could they impose onerous or varied conditions detrimental to the rights and legitimate expectations of the license holders.

¶321

It was thus submitted that in identical factual circumstances, the action of the respondents in issuing the circular dated 28.08.2024 and the subsequent clarification dated 13.01.2025, whereby the effect of the notification dated 13.03.2024 is virtually nullified or modified unilaterally, is arbitrary, beyond jurisdiction, and violative of Article 14, 19, 21, and 299 of the Constitution of India. It was therefore urged that the petitioners are entitled to the refund of their security deposits and advance AAG amounts, along with due interest, in accordance with the notification dated 13.03.2024 and the settled principles of fairness and non-arbitrariness governing contractual and administrative actions of the State. It was lastly urged that the petitioners seek indulgence of this Court to protect their legitimate rights, to ensure adherence to the rule of law, and to prevent arbitrary exercise of power by the respondent authorities in derogation of statutory notifications and binding judicial precedents.

(16 of 24)

[2025:RJ-JP:39010]

[CW-11294/2025]

SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL

¶326

REPRESENTING THE RESPONDENTS:

¶327

Per contra , learned Additional Advocate General, Mr. Bharat Vyas, appearing on behalf of the respondents, stoutly opposed the petitions and submitted that the present batch of writ petitions is premature and devoid of cause of action inasmuch as no demand notice, recovery proceedings, or order of forfeiture of the security amount is issued against the petitioners till date. It was contended that since no adverse financial or coercive action has been taken by the respondent authorities, the present petitions are filed prematurely and without any subsisting grievance, thereby rendering them not maintainable in their present form.

¶328

It is further contended that the facts and circumstances of the case of Krishna Sharma (supra) relied upon by the petitioners, are clearly distinguishable from the present set of cases. In the referred judgment, the petitions pertained to licensees who had expressed their unwillingness to continue the business operations, whereas, in the present bunch of petitions, the petitioners are those contractors who had voluntarily given their consent for the application of the Excise Policy of 2024–2025, as well as for the extension of the license period from 01.04.2024 to 30.06.2024. It is submitted that such contractors, having consented to the applicability of the new policy and derived benefits thereunder, are estopped from disputing the same or challenging the consequential financial implications. The security deposit and contract period stood governed by the extended license terms,

(17 of 24)

[2025:RJ-JP:39010]

[CW-11294/2025]

which were accepted and acted upon by the petitioners themselves.

¶333

Learned Additional Advocate General had further contended that the petitioners have an efficacious alternate remedy available under the relevant provisions of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 and Rules, as the controversy involves serious disputed questions of fact requiring detailed examination of records and evidence, which cannot be appropriately adjudicated in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It was further submitted that the matters in the present batch cannot be treated uniformly, as each petitioner’s factual matrix varies, particularly with regard to submission and acknowledgment of representations, many of which as allegedly are not filed through official channels or bear no diary number or acknowledgment from the department. Therefore, it cannot be presumed that valid representations are made or ignored by the authorities.

¶334

It was consequently submitted that the clarifications issued by the Excise Commissioner cannot be said to be without authority, nor can it be contended that the State Government’s clarification must always prevail over those issued by the Commissioner, as the latter is the competent authority empowered to interpret and implement policy guidelines in the field.

¶335

Learned Additional Advocate General had further contended that even assuming, arguendo , that a cause of action has arisen, the notification dated 13.03.2024, the clarificatory communication dated 19.03.2024, and the guidelines dated 28.08.2024, when read conjointly, make it explicitly clear that the Excise Policy of

[2025:RJ-JP:39010]

[CW-11294/2025]

(18 of 24)

2024–2025 was made operative and applicable to the extended period from 01.04.2024 to 30.06.2024. It is specifically provided therein that, under Clause 2.8.8, the monthly adjustment system was to be applied in place of the quarterly adjustment mechanism being claimed by the petitioners. These provisions, being part of the operative policy framework, necessarily require factual verification and computation, which cannot be undertaken in summary writ proceedings.

¶340

In conclusion, learned AAG submitted that the issues raised in the present petitions involve mixed questions of law and fact, particularly concerning the applicability and interpretation of successive Excise Policies (2023–2024 and 2024–2025) and the scope of the notifications dated 13.03.2024 and 28.08.2024, which are matters warranting specialised factual adjudication before the appropriate forum. Consequently, it was prayed that the present writ petitions, being premature, misconceived, and not maintainable, may kindly be dismissed in limine .

¶341

DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS:

¶342

Having heard the rival arguments advanced by the learned counsel for all the parties, undertaking a scrupulous examination of the record pertaining to the case, and juxtaposing the contentions noted herein above, this Court is of a view that prior to a substantive adjudication of the matter on its merits, it is appropriate to delineate and formally note down the submissions in precise, as submitted by the counsel representing respective parties, thereby providing a clear foundation upon which the subsequent legal analysis shall be constructed:

(19 of 24)

[2025:RJ-JP:39010]

[CW-11294/2025]

15.1 The petitioners being the highest bidders (as in the lead petition H-1) for the composite liquor shops for the excise year 2023-2024, were granted licenses to operate till 31.03.2024, but due to substantial financial losses, they did not intend to seek renewal thereof. However, owing to the sudden change in policy and imposition of the Model Code of Conduct during the general elections, the scheduled auction process could not be held, and consequently, their licenses were compulsorily extended up to 30.06.2024 under modified terms and conditions. It is urged that the refund and adjustment mechanism including AAG, stood determined under notification dated 13.03.2024 and clarification letter dated 19.03.2024, permitting quarterly adjustments and post-period renewals. Nevertheless, an unauthorized clarification issued by the Excise Commissioner dated 28.08.2024 was misinterpreted, leading to non-adjudication of their refund claims and continued withholding of money, contrary to the said notification and its subsequent clarification.

¶347

15.2 Learned AAG Mr. Bharat Vyas, appearing for the respondents, opposed the petitions contending that the present batch of writ petitions is premature as neither demand or recovery order is issued so as to give rise to a cause of action, nor any order of forfeiture of the security deposit is passed. It is further contended that the petitioners have an efficacious alternate remedy available, and as serious and disputed questions of fact are involved, the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is not the appropriate forum. It is also submitted that no official representation bearing acknowledgment or diary number is filed

(20 of 24)

[2025:RJ-JP:39010]

[CW-11294/2025]

by the petitioners, and hence, the plea of inaction is untenable. Learned AAG further submits that the clarifications issued by the Excise Commissioner are not subordinate to those issued by the State Government, and even if a cause of action is assumed, the notifications dated 13.03.2024, clarification dated 19.03.2024, and guidelines dated 28.08.2024 explicitly stipulate that the Excise Policy 2024–2025 shall govern, wherein clause 2.8.8 provides for monthly, not quarterly, adjustment necessitating factual adjudication. It is therefore argued that the issues raised involve intricate factual determinations regarding the applicability and interpretation of successive excise policies and are not amenable to writ jurisdiction.

¶352

Upon an assiduous consideration of the foregoing facts and circumstances of the matter at hand and taking note of the material available on record, this Court is of a view that it is an admitted and undisputed fact that the petitioners were holders of licenses for Composite Liquor Shops for the excise year 2023– 2024. As per the additional affidavit placed on record, it is not in dispute that the petitioners, along with other similarly situated licensees, entered into a counter agreement acknowledging the continuation of the policy for the period 01.04.2024 to 30.06.2024, subject to the same terms and conditions as were specified under the existing arrangement. The terms and conditions enumerated in Annexure–3 i.e. letter dated 19.03.2024 bearing number 7442, issued by District Excise Officer (Jaipur City), are reproduced herein below:

(21 of 24)

[2025:RJ-JP:39010]

[CW-11294/2025]

"1. mDr dEiksftV efnjk nqdku ds o"kZ 2024&25 dh okf"kZd xkj.Vh :- 33616722 ¼v{kjs Rupees Three crores Thirty Six Lacs Sixteen Thousand Seven Hundred Twenty Two Only½ fu/kkZfjr gSA

¶357

o"kZ 2024&25 ds fy;s fu/kkZfjr okf"kZd xkj.Vh jkf'k dh ,d pkSFkkbZ jkf'k dh xkjaVh iwfrZ fnukad 01-04-2024 ls 30-06-2024 rd dh vof/k esa djuh gksxhA

¶358

3- mDr vof/k esa fu/kkZfjr xkjaVh iwfrZ ugha djus ij nqdku ds uhykeh ;k vU; izdkj ls vkoaVu }kjk fu/kkZjfr okf"kZd xkjaVh jkf'k ds vuqlkj vkuqikfrd _Sekfld jkf'k rd cdk;k xkjaVh jkf'k udn tek djkuh gksxhA

¶359

4- o"kZ 2024&25 gsrq fu/kkZfjr okf"kZd ykbZlsal Qhl dh ,d pkSFkkbZ jkf'k 3 leku fd'rksa ekg vizSy] 2024 ls twu] 2024 esa izfrekg udn ;k ekfld xkjaVh iwfrZ i'pkr efnjk mBko }kjk tek djkuh gksxhA

¶360

5- o"kZ 2023&24 gsrq tek vfxze okf"kZd xkjUVh jkf'k dk fnukad 30-062024 rd efnjk mBko }kjk lek;kstu ns; gksxkA

¶361

6- o"kZ 2023&24 ds fy;s tek /kjksgj jkf'k dh izHkkoh frfFk fnukad 30-

¶362

06-2024 rd jgsxhA

¶363

7- o"kZ 2023&24 dh cdk;k xkjaVh iwfrZ dk fnukad 30-06-2024 rd eafnjk mBko ;k fu;ekuqlkj udn tek djkuk gksxkA

¶364

8- vU; 'krsZ o"kZ 2024&25 dh vkcdkjh ,oa en~;&la;e uhfr ds vuqlkj jgsaxhA

¶365

9- mDr 'krksZa dh ikyuk ugha djus ij /kjksgj jkf'k o vU; leLr tek jkf'k tCr dh tkdj jktlkr dj yh tk;sxhA 'ks"k cdk;k jkf'k dh Hkh fu;ekuqlkj olwyh dh tk;sxhA"

¶366

Further, relevant extract from Annexure-2 i.e. Order dated

¶367

13.03.2024 undersigned by Joint Government Secretary, Rajasthan is reproduced herein below:

¶368

"nqdku ds fy;s vU; 'krsZa o"kZ 2024&25 dh vkcdkjh ,oa e| la;e uhfr ds vuqlkj jgsaxhA"

¶369

A conjoint reading of the above clauses unequivocally reveals that the Excise Policy for the year 2024–2025 was made applicable to

(22 of 24)

[2025:RJ-JP:39010]

[CW-11294/2025]

such licensees who had opted for continuation. The case of the petitioners, therefore, stands on an entirely different footing than that of the petitioners in Krishna Sharma (supra). In the said judgment, the class of petitioners were those who had expressly declined to continue for the extended period from 01.04.2024 to 30.06.2024, whereas the present petitioners have voluntarily continued under the same policy framework, thereby rendering their position distinct and distinguishable.

¶374

It is also pertinent to observe that the order dated 13.03.2024, issued in the backdrop of the General Elections, 2024, contained certain modified conditions having an overlapping effect for the years 2023–2025, with explicit reference to the applicability of the policy for 2024–2025. It further emerges from the record that the letter dated 28.08.2025 was never invoked contemporaneously with the said order and appears to be contradictory on its face.

¶375

In the totality of circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that a limited adjudication is warranted in the matter, inasmuch as the petitioners are stated to be aggrieved by the retention of their security deposits and allied sums, without any corresponding demand or recovery order having been issued. It is a settled proposition that ubi jus ibi remedium meaning where there is a right, there is a remedy, and administrative inaction leading to indefinite retention of lawful dues cannot be countenanced.

¶376

The Court also notes that even the circular letter dated 28.08.2004 mandates that a speaking and reasoned order be passed upon consideration of the individual factual matrix in each

[2025:RJ-JP:39010]

[CW-11294/2025]

(23 of 24)

case of refund or forfeiture. However, in the present matter, as no cause of action has yet arisen, there being no demand notice, recovery order, or any order of forfeiture of the security deposit, the writ petitions, at this stage, are not maintainable, being premature and founded upon distinguishable facts and law. The doctrine of ripeness applies with full force in the instant case.

¶381

Howsoever, in order to safeguard the interests of the petitioners and to prevent multiplicity of litigation, this Court deems it just and proper to direct as under:

¶382

21.1 In the event the petitioners file representations seeking refund of their amounts or ventilating any other grievances, the same shall be adjudicated by way of a speaking order, both on facts and on points of law, within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of such representation.

¶383

21.2 The authority concerned, namely, the Excise Commissioner, shall consider such representations de novo , uninfluenced by any observations made by this Court, and pass an order in accordance with law.

¶384

21.3 In the event of failure to pass such an order within the stipulated period, it shall be deemed that the claim of the petitioners is found valid, and consequently, the amount sought for refund shall be released forthwith.

¶385

21.4 The Court further clarifies that retention of money beyond the period of thirty days from the date of filing such representation shall attract interest @ 12% per annum on the amount lawfully due to the petitioners, till actual payment.

(24 of 24)

[2025:RJ-JP:39010]

[CW-11294/2025]

21.5 Till such adjudication is made by the appropriate authority, no coercive measures shall be taken against the petitioners.

¶390

The doctrine actus curiae neminem gravabit , meaning that the act of the court shall prejudice no one, further guides that administrative delay should not operate to the detriment of the petitioners’ lawful rights. Thence, with the aforesaid observations and directions, the present batch of writ petitions stands disposed of.

¶391

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed.

¶392

(SAMEER JAIN),J

¶393

CHANDAN /

Rakesh Kumar Jakhar S/O Man Singh v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakesh Kumar Jakhar S/O Man Singh v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Labbu Singadiya S/O Shri Annu Singadiya, Vs State of Rajasthan

Shyam Lal S/O Sh. Harinarayan Nayak Vs the State of Rajasthan

Gurupreet Singh S/O Shri Chand Singh, Vs State of Rajasthan

Ajruddin @ Ajju S/O Mumtaj Vs State of Rajasthan

Atar Singh S/O. Har Kishan Vs the State of Rajasthan

Dhuni Lal S/O. Shimbhu Dayal Vs the State of Rajasthan